Yes, Eric Adams has been deftly weaponizing identity politics.

Yesterday, independent, left-leaning journalist/columnist Ross Barkan, on his Substack, published Eric Adams and the Weapon of Identity, warning, in his subheading, "The Left doesn't quite know what could hit them."

Indeed, Brooklyn Borough President Adams is positioned "for a slim but significant victory" in the Democratic primary, tantamount to the election:

Rising in the polls, Adams appears to be gaining great traction with Black voters and winning over more moderate whites in the outer boroughs, particularly older voters worried about rising crime. White liberals, increasingly wary of him, still may rank him on more ballots than Andrew Yang, who faced months of media scrutiny that Adams never endured.

Adams is a smart guy and a deft politician, able to corral numerous labor endorsements and ride the power of machine politics. His professional biography--though see Vanity Fair's caveats on his police career--and the much-highlighted rise in crime position him to reap tabloid endorsements and focus.

The weapon of idenity

Barkan suggests the Asian American Yang "has had an uneasy relationship with identity politics, but Adams has not." Worth adding that Yang, not unlike Adams (but to a lesser extent), has also been able to charge racism (with partial foundation) to deflect political criticism.

Barkan points out that Yang is open to freezing rents to help struggling New Yorkers, while Adams instead invoked Black and brown homeowners. Writes Barkan:

Adams’ answer is both brilliant and deeply wrong. Rent-stabilized units that the Rent Guidelines Board sets the rent for have little, if anything, to do with the kind of single property-owners—the theoretical Ms. Jones—that Adams cites. Rent-stabilized apartments are typically in buildings built before 1974 that have more than six units. Would Ms. Jones, at 80, be trying to pay her mortgage while owning six or more apartments? Not likely.

Like other real estate-aligned politicians, Adams continues to spread a favorite myth of landlords—that any kind of law helping tenants punishes blue collar property-owners who are just trying to get by.

So, Barkan writes, "All policy criticisms of Mayor Adams, in the coming years, can be reduced to race if he so chooses," including illegal parking at Borough Hall, Adams' questionable explanations for his whereabouts, and his use--just like his white predecessor, Marty Markowitz--of a nonprofit to raise funds outside the campaign finance system.

I'd add that, as I've written, for both City & State and the New York Daily News, Adams dismissed criticism of scofflaw nightclub Woodland as "racism," given the identity of the patrons, despite significant evidence of business practices (by a white owner, with felons as business partners) that led to excess drinking with too few bathrooms to accommodate those who needed them.

Eric Adams has faced less scrutiny than he deserves, I wrote in August 2018 and, until recently, that's been true. He's a capable enough politician to spin a 4/28/21 Q&A headlined Understanding Eric Adams, subtitled "The Brooklyn borough president discusses some of the biggest controversies during his political tenure and why he’s not actually as shocking as some may think."

Well, maybe he is, depending on where you look. As Barkan wrote 5/19/21, Eric Adams has no principles, and election lawyer Howard Graubard wrote, Let’s not let Adams off Scott-Free.

Some comments

Responding to Barkan's most recent post, one commenter wrote, "This article, like so many other attempts to unpack how to win Black voters to the left, tells us what we should want instead of listening to what we say we do. (Hint: it's not a candidate who lives on a block with private security equivocating about taking disarming the police.)"

That's a reference to the seeming hypocrisy of Maya Wiley and her residence in, yes, privately-patrolled Prospect Park South.

Well, people have different reasons for voting, and an Adams mayoralty surely appeals more to those who share his priorities. But that means they're willing to overlook, or downplay, his less-than-principled record.